Douglas Blumeyer's RTT How-To: Difference between revisions

Line 216:

[[File:Shape_of_scale_of_movements_on_axes.png|thumb|left|200px|'''Figure 3e.''' the basic shape the scaled axes make between neighbor maps (maps with only 1 difference between their terms)]]

Our example ET will be 40. We'll start out at the map {{map|40 63 93}}. This map is a default of sorts for 40-ET, because it’s the map where all three terms are as close as possible to JI when prime 2 is exact (we'll be calling it a simple map here, though elsewhere you may find it called a "[[patent val]]"<ref>My first concern with “patent” map is that "patent", as an adjective, is unfamiliar to most people, unless it relates to those documents called patents. Calling them "obvious maps" would have been better than "patent maps".

Our example ET will be 40. We'll start out at the map {{map|40 63 93}}. This map is a default of sorts for 40-ET, because it’s the map where all three terms are as close as possible to JI when prime 2 is exact (we'll be calling it a '''simple map''' here, though elsewhere you may find it called a "[[patent val]]"<ref>My first concern with “patent” map is that "patent", as an adjective, is unfamiliar to most people, unless it relates to those documents called patents. Calling them "obvious maps" would have been better than "patent maps".

The second concern is that they are not always obvious. If it were, there would be no contention about it. This name suggests a positive value judgment (and dismissive value judgement on other maps) which we think is inappropriate. A name like “patent” or "obvious" map may lead too many people concerned with accurate tuning to accept this map when if they'd known better they may have preferred the map with the most accurate tuning overall, i.e. the “best” map. The classic example of a best map which is not the patent map is 17c at the 5-limit.

@@ Line 216: / Line 216: @@
 [[File:Shape_of_scale_of_movements_on_axes.png|thumb|left|200px|'''Figure 3e.''' the basic shape the scaled axes make between neighbor maps (maps with only 1 difference between their terms)]]
-Our example ET will be 40. We'll start out at the map {{map|40 63 93}}. This map is a default of sorts for 40-ET, because it’s the map where all three terms are as close as possible to JI when prime 2 is exact (we'll be calling it a simple map here, though elsewhere you may find it called a "[[patent val]]"<ref>My first concern with “patent” map is that "patent", as an adjective, is unfamiliar to most people, unless it relates to those documents called patents. Calling them "obvious maps" would have been better than "patent maps".
+Our example ET will be 40. We'll start out at the map {{map|40 63 93}}. This map is a default of sorts for 40-ET, because it’s the map where all three terms are as close as possible to JI when prime 2 is exact (we'll be calling it a '''simple map''' here, though elsewhere you may find it called a "[[patent val]]"<ref>My first concern with “patent” map is that "patent", as an adjective, is unfamiliar to most people, unless it relates to those documents called patents. Calling them "obvious maps" would have been better than "patent maps".
 The second concern is that they are not always obvious. If it were, there would be no contention about it. This name suggests a positive value judgment (and dismissive value judgement on other maps) which we think is inappropriate. A name like “patent” or "obvious" map may lead too many people concerned with accurate tuning to accept this map when if they'd known better they may have preferred the map with the most accurate tuning overall, i.e. the “best” map. The classic example of a best map which is not the patent map is 17c at the 5-limit.